Talk:Unrecognized ethnic groups in China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many undistinguished nationalities?[edit]

How many undistinguished nationalities are there? Badagnani 09:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change from "undistinguished" to "unclassified"[edit]

Please explain this change. We should be using the English term that the Chinese government uses in its own English-language literature on this subject. Badagnani 21:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yi[edit]

Are the Yi mentioned here a different Yi than the Yi included in the official 56 ethnic groups? The hanzi seem to be different. Badagnani 21:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still need a source for Yi (羿人). Badagnani 17:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link from Yi is wrong: It goes to another ethnic group, also transliterated as Yi but pronounced and written differently in Chinese and recognised by the Chinese government. This also answers Badagnani's question above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.246.72.130 (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Enough[edit]

See edit. Yes we should use the government term. Undistinguished has negative connotations which weishibie does not. I thought that was worth explaining.

I did a Google search but (as is often the case these days) the main page that was showing up was our own Wikipedia entry--which is apparently the most prominent and comprehensive English-language page on the subject. I couldn't find any official Chinese government sites that used the term in English.
I think "undistinguished" could read either way (as "not accomplished" or "not given the distinction of official recognition"). In the U.S. we have maybe up to 100 or more American Indian tribes that are not federally recognized (though some are state-recognized), but I think we call them "non-federally recognized tribes." That term seems to make more sense. Badagnani 21:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I suggest 'officially unrecognised' or 'unclassified' would be a better translation, and a better header for this page. But then, perhaps this is my British status-consciousness showing through.
Ethnologue translates the Chinese government term as "undetermined minorities."[1] Badagnani 21:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They can determine themselves quite well, I think. The point is that they are not officially recognised, as you so succinctly put it. Ethnologue is valuable in the breadth of its data, but not in depth or critical analysis. Remember, Ethnologue is a resource for converting the world to Christianity, not a scholarly archive.

Is that true? Aren't you confusing it with the Joshua Project or "Unreached peoples" websites? Badagnani 22:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnologue is a project of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, which is an "alternative face" of Wycliffe Bible Translators. —Babelfisch 06:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that is really crazy. I had no idea of this and think most people don't know either, that their underlying reason for doing what they do is to change people's religions around the world. I wrote to them several times over the past years asking them to fix the alternate name for the Yaqui people/language (adding the indigenous name Yoeme/Yoemem but they basically ignored me, then said they'd fix it in the next edition. They didn't. So my opinion of them isn't very high right now as they apparently think they're not answerable to anyone, even if something they publish is lacking or incorrect. Badagnani 06:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"nationality" vs. "ethnic group"[edit]

"Nationality" is an incorrect translation because the word means citizenship. People's Daily uses the English term "ethnic minorities". [2] Hong Qi Gong 17:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, "nationality" is the English translation the Chinese government has used for decades. Also, if the Han people are a "minzu," how are they an "ethnic minority"? Badagnani 17:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People's Daily is ran by the Chinese government. I didn't say Han people are an ethnic minority, but People's Daily refers to the 55 ethnic groups as ethnic minorities, not "nationalities".
Does a newspaper now take precedence over the official, standard English translation that appears in the Chinese constitution, on the Chinese government's own website? [3][4] Hope you can address this, as you didn't allow for it before your page move. Badagnani 17:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing - [5]. Hong Qi Gong 17:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever did this translation is using new terminology. However, the wording in the Constitution stands, and thus the term must appear in the article. You seem to ignore or fail to understand that the concept of "minzu" encompasses nationality, otherwise the term Zhonghua minzu would not mean what it means, a theoretical "Chinese nationality." It's not an ethnic group. Badagnani 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the translation is posted at english.gov.cn. And the article is posted in February 2005. So the terminology would seem to be the most updated. As I said, "minzu" can mean both nationality and ethnicity. It basically just means "people group", and it does not have specific meanings on citizenship, whereas "nationality" does. Zhonghua minzu, on the other hand, denotes Chinese nationality or Chinese citizenship, or the all-encompassing group of people within China. Hong Qi Gong 17:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good points. You're a native speaker and I'm not. The way it stands is that various official government translators have used various translations, and the most current seems to be "ethnic groups." But "nationalities" still appears in the Constitution. Badagnani 17:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?[edit]

I'm going to add this list to List of ethnic groups in China, but are there any sources that list these "undistinguished" or "indeterminant" minority groups? --- Hong Qi Gong 18:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utsul[edit]

This article says

These "undistinguished ethnic groups" do not include groups that have been controversially classified into existing groups

Utsul article says

[T]he Chinese government places them as members of the Hui nationality.

If the Chinese government has indeed done so, they shouldn't be in this list, should they? Wikipeditor 15:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then they're "mis-distinguished." But we have no article for that. Perhaps this article can be split into two, with groups that are subsumed into other larger groups by the PRC government described in its own section. There are at least a few such groups and I think we owe it to our readers to cover these groups fully. And this is certainly the first place that I, as a Wikipedia user, would look for such ethnolinguistic groups as the Utsul. Badagnani 21:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... when was the decision made to exclude those groups that were "controversially" classified into the officially recognised groups? I think we should actually include those groups in this article. This is not a particularly big article and could use the expansion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history shows that the bold not was in the article from the very first version. I agree with you that such groups should be discussed in this article. Badagnani 23:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do it then. What groups need to be included? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, though I've seen discussion of this elsewhere. I think the Shan, Buryat, and Tuvans would be included. This website will probably give you dozens more. Some ethnic groups, such as the Yao, Hmong, Palaung, etc., have many sub-groups or sub-languages. Badagnani 23:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just a list of languages and dialects in China. There's not necessarily a one-to-one correlation between a language and an ethnic group. I think we're going to need better sources. For that matter, this article currently doesn't even cite any sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course the Ethnologue page must be sifted through and evaluated to see which ethnic groups don't overlap with the languages. As with the listing of Thai ethnic groups I began, it seems that no single source contains them all. Thus, this involves quite a bit of legwork. It's worth it, though. Badagnani 02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks like what we'll need is at least a source for each "undistinguished" ethnic group. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add, if there is evidence that there is controversy around how some of these groups are classified, we should definitely make note of that somewhere, somehow, on the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing[edit]

I've referenced the Macanese, the Khmu, the Sherpa, and Youtai people. A quick search did not really return reliable information on the Mang and Utsul peoples in China.

  1. I see that "Mang" is classified as a language on the ethnologue website. My quick search found that they are classified as the De'ang people in China. I did not find any sources that contest that the Mang is a seperate people from the De'ang. Is it possible that "Mang" and "De'ang" are just two different names of the same people?
  • Let's find out who originally added the Mang. Sometimes within a language family are groups that consider themselves to be unique ethnic groups but which are so small that they are lumped together by the PRC government, the Miao and Yao being examples. Badagnani 06:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. My quick search also did not yield any information about the Utsul in China. Everything that showed up on my search seemed to be mirror sites of WP or actually got their information from the WP article on the Utsul, which is itself unreferenced.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a Wikipedia page for their language, which is Chamic (Malayo-Polynesian) yet tonal. I think this is a legit Hainan group, albeit small. Badagnani 06:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you read Chinese? Try this search and you'll find a few things. Badagnani 06:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Mang are mentioned here, the fourth one down. I wonder if the wind musical instrument mangtong is named for them. Badagnani 06:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did find an informative article on the Mang in simplified Chinese[6]. But should we not be using English sources for English WP? The Chinese-language sources we can find definitely justifies them to be listed here, but it still remains to be sourced with English references. I found a couple of English-language sources mentioning their existence in China[7][8], but they're both evangelistic sites. I'd really rather not use evangelistic sites as sources, especially as sources about any indigenous people because they're all about how "primitive" indigenous peoples are and how they need to be "saved". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that you're in HK and speak no fewer than 3 varieties of Chinese. That's amazing. Anyway, I do a lot of work on Chinese cuisine and music articles and often the only references are in Chinese, so I use them. That's fine. People can always translate via Babelfish (though it calls the Mang the "awn people" and the Khmu "the tree" people...). Badagnani 07:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually in HK at the moment, but a lot of people from HK nowadays understand Mandarin in addition to their native Cantonese anyway. And I wouldn't say that "I speak Taishanese". I understand a little bit. Notice I only gave myself a "1" rating on my Babel box. :-p
Anyway, I guess we can use Chinese-language sources until English ones are found or become available. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List[edit]

Here's the list from http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/7618327.html?md=3

  • <一>"西家"人:（划在苗族的一个民族）
  • <二>"革家"人:（划在苗族的一个民族）约五、六万人

黄平县称之为未识别民族

  • <三>"穿青"人:中国西南地区60多万的民族,民族问题含糊。
  • Mang - <四> "芒"人:是至今尚未确定族系的民族。1985年统计有82户，568人
  • <五>"菜族"人（自称）:未识别民族,计32户、170人
  • <六>"羿人":未识别民族,300余人.
  • Khmu - <七>"克木"人:一个尚未确定族称的少数民族，现有二千余人，居住在云南省.
  • <八>"茂族"人:说扎贝语.分布在甘孜州道孚县的亚卓乡、红顶乡、仲尼乡、

扎拖乡、下拖乡和雅江县的瓦多乡、木绒乡，人口约8000人。

  • <九>"顾羌人":说贵琼语,分布在甘孜州康定县的舍联、时济、前溪、麦笨 、三合等乡，泸定县的长征、烹坝、泸桥乡以及雅安地区宝兴县硗碛乡的部分村寨。人口约6000人。
  • <10>"格鲁人":说嘉戎语,分布在阿坝州的马尔康、黑水、理县、汶川、金

川、小金等县，雅安地区的宝兴县，甘孜州的丹巴县。使用嘉戎语的人口约116900人。 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badagnani (talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

And a list of Yunnan undistinguished groups, from http://www.ynethnic.gov.cn/Info.aspx?infoid=912

  • 六、其他未识别民族
  • 据2000年云南省第五次人口普查，我省尚未识别民族成分的主要有克木人、芒人等，人口共有7404人。 Badagnani 06:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some more here. Badagnani 06:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ainu/Aini of China[edit]

A section here should have been the first place to discuss the addition of the Ainu/Aini of China rather than begin an edit war. Ethnologue states that they are "Part of the Uyghur nationality. They do not intermarry with the Uyghur." Thus, this seems to be an example of PRC "lumping," as with the Gaoshan. If they are a distinct ethnic group that does not intermarry with Uyghurs, as Ethnologue says, then they merit a mention here. Badagnani 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot. Sorry for fighting about it instead of commenting here first.--Erkin2008 22:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you've moved them to the section containing groups that the PRC lumps in as part of one of the official groups. If you know more about the Ainu/Aini, why not tell us about it here? How did you learn about them? Badagnani 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undistinguished or Unclassified - Make up your mind[edit]

There is a line at the bottom of the article indicating that the correct translation into English is 'unclassified' rather than 'undistinguished.' Regardless of the merits of unclassified being less offensive in English - undistinguished meaning closer to unnoticed or unimportant - if the correct translation is 'unclassified' in English then surely that's what the article should be called in English. Either that, or the line indicating the correct translation is wrong and should be removed. It has to be one or the other. Mdw0 (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The best translation is not always the most literal. For languages as different as English and Chinese, it very often is not very literal. The normal English word for this situation is "unrecognized", and we even explain in the intro that that's what it means. For example, the Usonian media only speaks of "unrecognized" US tribes. If we have to explain in the intro that we don't really mean "undistinguished" (or "unclassified", for that matter) but rather "unrecognized", then per MoS (use English) the title should be "unrecognized" to begin with.
"Undistinguished" does not mean that the govt. does not distinguish them from other groups, but that they have never accomplished anything of value. "Unclassified" means we don't know what kind of people they are. Both are false. A literal translation from Chinese produces pidgin, not English. kwami (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, maybe I should put it this way - does anyone have a problem with the article being renamed Unclassified ethnic groups in China? Unrecognised makes it seem no-one knows they're there. Undistinguished is definitely, as mentioned above, unimportant, never accomplished anything and inappropriate for a majority to be labelling a minority. Unclassified means 'Other' and is a translation of the Chinese reference. Mdw0 (talk) 06:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Yes, I object to "unclassified", because they are classified. The Khmu are Mon-Khmer. The Macanese are Eurasian. The Sherpa are Tibetan. And the Jews are, well, Jews. "Unrecognized" means exactly what the intro says: they are not recognized (implication: officially) as constituting distinct ethnic groups. That's just how the word is used. It doesn't mean "undiscovered". Take a look at Unrecognized tribes finally get governmental attention, published by the Lakota Times—a paper which is quite sensitive to the politics of words. Google the phrase and you'll come up with all sorts of things like this. Then there's our own List of unrecognized tribes. This is based on English-language data and IMO should be used as a model for the vocab in similar articles with data translated from other languages. (I have a problem with the word "tribes", but not "unrecognized".) kwami (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This video contradicts the idea that Sherpas are Tibetan under Chinese ethnic classification. In the video, reporter inspected a Sherpa person's ID, which said "Other", and they said the Hukou states "Sherpa". --Voidvector (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fair enouigh - I just think Undistinguished is a poor option. I think its use is based on the meaning of the verb 'to distinguish' meaning to mentally separate without any recognition of the other negative meanings that the literal adjective has in English. Anyone else have a problem with 'Unrecognised?' This word is also a little vague, but a line in the intro indicating the groups lack official recognition as distinct groups should sort this out. Mdw0 (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Looks like no-one does. I'll move it. kwami (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qiangic peoples of Kham[edit]

Why is the link page have them as one of the 56 groups? I recall that there is an "autonomous prefecture" (in name only) for them and the Tibetans in West Sichuan/ Kham. Looks like a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.17.130 (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese?[edit]

Where do people of Yamato (Japanese) and Ryukyuan descent fit? Since they're not among the 56 groups, and since I think common sense and/or anecdotal evidence indicates that there certainly are Japanese & Ryukyuans living in China, including some I am sure who have been there for 100s of years if not longer, can we add them to the list of "unclassified" groups? I noticed a "citation needed" on the other page, List of ethnic groups in China, but surely we don't need a citation to know that a non-zero number of Japanese/Ryukyuan people live in the PRC and ROC, and that they're not among the 56 ethnic groups, right? LordAmeth (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find anything on population breakdown by ethnicity on the site of the Chinese Bureau of Statistics, but if you can read Japanese (or Chinese, for that matter), a 2010 report by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Japanese Nationals Overseas lists over 15,000 Japanese nationals under the umbrella of the Beijing embassy, over 63,000 under the umbrella of the Shanghai consulate, 21,000 in Hong Kong, and 20,000 in Taiwan. This of course only covers Japanese citizens, not PRC/ROC/HK citizens of Japanese descent, and makes no distinction between Yamato/Ryukyuan/Ainu ethnicity. But, still... LordAmeth (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly are people of Japanese (Yamato and Ryukyuan) heritage who are citizens of China, but I don't think they could constitute a notable ethnic group in the same sense as those ethnic groups that are officially recognized, in that they don't maintain any distinctive culture or sense of community.
As a case example, one major source of ethnic Yamato who hold Chinese citizenship would be the descendants of those babies left behind by the Japanese who settled northeastern China during World War II and promptly fled after the war ended. Their existence, history, and status are well-documented in historical records and modern media coverage. The Japanese of northeastern China were recognized by the occupying government of Manchukuo as one of five “official” ethnic groups of the Japanese puppet state (along with Han, Manchu, Koreans, and Mongol), but unlike the other four ethnic groups, they did not maintain official status under the PRC - The overwhelming majority of them returned to Japan before the PRC was in a position to classify ethnic groups, and those that remained were infants or young children who were raised by Han families and grew up believing they were also Han.
As a result of this peculiar history, zero of these ethnic Japanese holding Chinese citizenship spoke Japanese as their native language, maintained a conscious Japanese ethnic identity, or practiced Japanese customs, unlike the Korean minority (Chaoxian zu). Once many of these ethnic Japanese acquired knowledge of their Japanese origins, many of them moved to Japan after being presented the opportunity to do so. The fraction who remained in China are still culturally assimilated into the Han, having Han Chinese names, speaking Chinese, practicing Han Chinese customs, and marrying with Han or other local ethnic groups. There's no reason for them to develop a distinctive ethnic consciousness, and to ascribe to them a national dress or national dance the way other Chinese ethnic groups have would be a complete fabrication. Also, unlike ethnic groups like the Koreans, ethnic Japanese have no geographic overlap with China, having achieved ethnogenesis on a chain of islands with no land border with China. The only recognized Chinese ethnic groups that are similar are the Tatars and Uzbeks, but these groups maintain distinctive cultural traits. --124.88.176.126 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Kalmyks[edit]

List of ethnic groups in China says there are Kalmyk people in China, so can mention of the Kalmyks please be added to this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 08:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to here, Kalmyks living in China are called Torghut. I couldn't find any source for a population living in China. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

pLease add kaifeng jews[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.55.211 (talk)

Add Torghut to this article[edit]

Can mention of the Torghut people be added to this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits[edit]

@Voidvector, the Ukrainians of China were not an expat group, but rather a diasporic community; there was a historically-existing community there which was not exclusively from Ukraine (nor consisting exclusively of émigrés) and had no intentions of leaving. The 5,000-20,000 modern Ukrainians mentioned in the article are not expats, either, but rather assimilated descendants of Ukrainian settlers. Therefore, removing them on such a basis as them being expats is incorrect, because this number does not include expats, those studying abroad, and so on.

Mupper-san (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From top of my head, ethnic group generally needs -- a community or enclave, cultural inheritance, political disassociation from foreign country, and group identity. None of those exist here:
  • A community or enclave - there is no Ukrainian enclave mentioned. An example of other ethnic groups with their enclave community would be Yanbian Koreans, Ili Kazakhs, Enhe Russians.
  • Cultural inheritance - Since the Ukrainians have assimilated, there is no common culture, identity, etc passed down from generation to generation.
  • Political disassociation from foreign country - the British and Indians has been in Hong Kong since a century ago. No one tried to argue that British and Indians are unrecognized ethnic group in China.
  • Group identity - They have assimilated, so this doesn't exist anymore. (Regarding the identity due to recent conflict mentioned in the other article, that is political identity not ethnic identity, similar to Jewish vs Israeli identities)
--Voidvector (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unrecognized_ethnic_groups_in_China&oldid=1198329707"